Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false); the description adds real behavior beyond them — creation yields a DRAFT, quantity is validated against campaign.minQuantity and monthlyLimit, and the call has a side effect of opening a support ticket. It does not discuss permissions, reversibility of the draft, or the relationship between idempotencyKey and idempotentHint=false, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information (what is created, what is enforced, side effect, commit flag, next tool). The most important scoping facts are front-loaded and nothing is repeated.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the key agent questions: draft-vs-commit semantics, validation constraints, side effects, and the follow-up tool. It leaves permission/authorization requirements and what the response contains unstated, which is a modest remaining gap given full schema coverage and annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: the concrete minimum-quantity example ('20 pairs for wings') and the monthlyLimit ceiling that governs the quantity parameter. Other parameters (farmId, paymentMethod, paymentDetails) get no extra clarification in the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a Draft Bulk-Supply farm shipment') with scope qualifiers ('Sell Parts', 'for this farm'), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like express_supplier_interest or list_my_supplier_shipments. It stops short of naming a sibling it must not be confused with, so it lands just under the top band.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear operational context: the default is a preview and 'Set confirm:true to commit', plus an explicit next step ('update_supplier_shipment_tracking when shipped'). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite/auth conditions are stated, so it is clear context without exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.